Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ncar!ames!elroy!gryphon!vector!telecom-request From: dritchey@ihlpb.att.com Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: AT&T letter to AT&T Cardholders on COCOTs (AOS) Message-ID: Date: 29 Aug 88 14:37:00 GMT Sender: chip@vector.UUCP Lines: 58 Approved: telecom-request@vector.uucp (USENET Telecom Moderator) X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 8, issue 136, message 5 X-Submissions-To: telecom@xx.lcs.mit.edu (Mailing List Coordinator) X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.uucp (USENET Telecom Moderator) Summary: USEREAFJ%mts.rpi.edu@itsgw.rpi.edu: In article (Message-ID: ), you wrote > Approved: telecom-request@vector.uucp (USENET Telecom Moderator) > X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 8, issue 134, message 2 > > In reference to the letter that AT&T sent out to it's AT&T Cardholders > about AOS (Alternate Operator Services)... > - > Why does AT&T manufacture COCOTS that don't let the customer choose > an AT&T Card call by dialing 10288 directly? The COCOTs that AT&T makes > tend to be some of the worst in respect to choosing a regular Bell > operator. Almost universally, the owner of the COCOT blocks out all but > the AOS services, and the AT&T COCOTs seem to be best at doing so! Almost universally, number screening and the like is handled by a LD carrier in the nearest switching office. (I see no reason that an AOS need be any different.) The phone itself would very likely have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with blocking access to 10XXX numbers. (Most phones aren't that smart.) Almost any electronic switching system has the ability to block access to 10XXX calls. Our (AT&T's) Number 5ESS* has it, I am sure that most others would provide it as well. It is provided because that is what the customer (the telephone operating companies) ask for. If the COCOT provider uses a modern switch, I see no reason why blocking of 10XXX calls cannot provided on whatever switch they use. (* 5ESS is a registered trademark of AT&T) I would imagine (I have no proof, as I am not in that line of business) that AT&T sells its pay telephones like it sells any other type of customer owned equipment. The only difference here is that the phone is owned by one person for another to use. I also expect that AT&T would not be permitted to discriminate between customers based on anything other that their demonstrated ability (or lack thereof) to pay their bills. > Looks like AT&T is trying to have it both ways...I wonder how their > public relations dept. would answer a question like this... > (Err...assuming they bother to answer, that is...) Please note, I am not in public relations, I work in switching systems R&D. I DO NOT SPEAK FOR AT&T. I am addressing the question of how any switching system handles digit analysis. Any other comments are my own speculation about general business practices. AGAIN, I DO NOT SPEAK FOR AT&T. > -Doug > usereafj@rpitsmts.bitnet (temp) Don -- Don Ritchey (312) 979-6179, AT&T Bell Laboratories, IH 2F-416 att!ihlpl!dritchey or dritchey@ihlpl.att.com {for smart mailers}